sandgrubber

Years back I had a girl who had mild seizures a few times a year, starting at three to four years of age. No association with vaccinations, and we could never pin it down to any sort of poison. My very practical vet said don't bother with all the tests because you're unlikely to get good answers and could spend a fortune. So long as it is less than once a month, it's not worth treating and pretty harmless. If it gets worse / more frequent, try epilepsy meds. She stopped seizing at around eight years. It's unnerving for the owner, but doesn't seem to be much of a wory for the dog.

I'm doing e-collar training by correspondence with two Labradors. I love the collars, and the basic messages seem to be getting through. However, I'm having a problem with Molly, who seems to anticipate the stimulus and comply before commands are given, thereby avoiding situations where stim may be applied. Molly is an extremely biddable pup (1.5 yrs). I'm using e-collar training on her because she has a history, during off lead walks, of getting a bee in her bonnet and running off across a busy road to find a place where I sometimes take the dogs to swim . . . or to find a yummy bit of roadkill. For example, first exercise . . . dog goes out on long lead. Stim . . . guided recall. When she turns to come back, turn off stim and praise. Molly did this fine a few times, then she decided it was better not to leave my heels, making it difficult to do the exercise. We've since graduated to recall under distraction and off-lead in a fenced field, and she's doing fine with these . . . but still shows a tendency to stick to my heels. Sit at distance. Same problem. I stake her out. At first she sits fine in response to stim and even holds the sit for a few minutes. But by the fourth or fifth repetition she decided that it's better to sit immediately when staked out, making it hard to continue the exercise. If I try sit-at-distance with a long lead or off-lead she comes to me first, then sits. The simplest ways around these problems involve giving commands on the run. Unfortunately, I've got a nasty case of tendonitis and cannot run. I know there are two-person ways around these problems, but I live on my own. I can get helpers from time to time . . . but not every day. Has anyone encountered similar problems? How do you teach the dog not to avoid situations associated with the stim? Am I doing something wrong? Btw, I've gone over her level of stim several times, and had a friend with dog-training background independently verify the level, so I doubt the stim, at 8 or 9, is too high.

He sounds like 80% of the beagles I get in the boarding kennel. So cute. But rotten hole diggers (small holes all over the place) who run away when called and . . .#$@!$# beagles. Reputation for naughtiness well deserved. Attention/exercise demand seems to be 24/7. If I owned one I'd be inclined to use an e-collar. As for fencing. Weldmesh perimeter if you can afford it or get scraps . . . for that matter . . . dig in 200+ mm trash quality zincalume around the perimeter . . . it should do the trick. Alternative, pour a concrete path around the border of your fence. You probably want 500 mm or more width. Otherwise, electric fence. Or make friends with the neighbours and build a gate into your fence.

I'm a breeder and run a boarding kennel, so get "wholesale" prices . . . I use a mobile vet and my location is on her normal route of travel. Like all vets, she makes occasional mistakes, but her overall record is good. Routine check accompanies vaccination. This includes: teeth, ears, stethascope over heart and lungs, quick look at coat, etc., plus answers to any questions I may have about other aspects of health. She has a good eye/instinct for dog health, and is likely to pick up other indications. If I've got a few jobs lined up, she happily answers other questions for no charge. I generally do 3+ dogs at a time, and the vet charges $25/dog plus any other (apart from C5 vaccination) medications. If the dogs are boarders, rather than my own dogs, she charges $40/dog.

I agree with the spirit of your post. Temperament variation within breeds is huge and it's hard and unfair to generalise. Btw. I've met some quite nasty shih-tzu X malteses. I run a boarding kennel and work on the assumption that most dogs are social beasts and will be happier if allowed some sort of pack . . . though some cannot safely be allowed to mix with other dogs due to DA tendencies. I use breed as a first cut decider. Eg, staffies and JRTs are particularly unpredictable. Some of them are sweet, many would be ok but their boisterous greetings tend to set off hostile reactions in other dogs, and some are outright DA. Socialised Rottis are much happier with dog company than left alone, while unsocialised Rottis cannot be mixed cause the cost of them getting agro is not acceptable. Kelpies tend to be timid and may nip when threatened, but rarely attack; but some of them will fly over a 2 m fence when they feel threatened. In cases where breed raises questions, I always grill the owner about the dog's social behaviour and do a fair bit of testing before allowing the dog to mix with other dogs. On the other hand, thanks to breed standards that are largely enforced by culling DA animals from the breeding stock, most gundogs are dog social. There are exceptions -- I have a DA goldie in kennels now, and I have had an occasional DA Labrador / Weimerarner / GSP. Once ensuring a gundog isn't an exception, you can let it mix after relatively minor testing of reactions to other dogs. Cross breeds are harder to predict. I don't trust any entire male, especially when girls are on season. What about . . . make the legislation breed neutral . . . but the penalties proportional to the dog's ability to do damage . . . as rated by, say, some combination of body weight and jaw strength. For example, a nasty tempered Chihuahua (sp?) is unlikely to damage more than an ankle and is unlikely to kill a cat (might kill a bunny rabbit). A nasty tempered Mastiff X Rotti, weighing 75 kg, with a whopping strong jaw, is likely to kill something if inherent temperament is aggressive, socialisation, containment, and control are poor. So the fine for a nasty WaWa escaping and biting the postie might be . . . say . . . 10% of that for the equivalent fine for a dog with lethal potential biting the postie. Double the fines if the dog or bitch isn't desexed. Under this system a nasty Labrador would be treated the same as a nasty Pitti . . . or maybe worse, cause Labbies are more inclined to get fat As a Lab breeder I'd be ok with that. So far as I'm aware, none of my pups have shown DA or HA tendencies. Great if puppy buyers are encouraged to keep their dogs slim and get them desexed. p.s. Also good if prior record is considered, breeders are held somewhat responsible for the pups they have bred, and rangers are encouraged to make their priorities: chronic offenders and dogs that are physically a threat to people and other animals and any indication of blood sport.

The Calgary solution sounds great, but I wonder what they charge or dog registration. The articles sited say their whole program, which doesn't sound cheap, is paid for by the proceeds from dog registrations. Is it equitable to tax owners of "mostly harmless" breeds to pay for management of "tendency to aggression" breeds/crossbreeds?

I periodically (usually Xmas) look after a ~10 yr old Labbie with diabetes. She is fine on regular maintenance biscuits (I use the product that Eagle pack markets in Asia, called Prism) with half a trimmed chicken frame a day. I expect it will take awhile and some patience to get your dog stabilised . . . but if the disease is not extreme, you may be able to go to a relatively ordinary diet. Some vets say 'no bones' no matter what the condition is. Sometimes you have to second guess your vet . . . or get a second opinion . . . on the bones question. As others have suggested, bones are highly variable in fat content.

Publication of the dog genome in 2005 and related studies looking at variation of dog genome between breeds have added a lot of substance to this debate. I think it's pretty clear from DNA studies that the domestication of wolves has occurred in more than one location and that there has been varying amounts of back breeding from domesticated dogs to wolves. If I remember correctly, the studies looking at genetic distance between breeds tended to follow expectations, eg, the Asiatic dogs were off on a separate branch, as were the basenjiis. See the link to Science posted earlier in this thread. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5674/1160 Archaeologists found a dog ceremonially buried along with an old woman dating from around 10k yrs ago (or was it 10,000 BC?). I think this remains the first blaziningly obvious evidence of domestication, but there are hints that domestication of dogs may go back as far as 100,000 yrs. Those working with solid scientific evidence don't seem to have much disagreement. People speculating go off in different directions. See the link to ABC Animal Attraction (Jonica Newby) I posted earlier.

If my breed was discriminated against the way that APBT's are, I'd certainly want it to go somewhere.

The leading article, based on DNA sequences, is found at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5674/1160 DNA sequencing is really the only way to get at this information. Archaeological finds of dogs are not available in large enough quantities to trace the evolution of breeds. You'll have to register to download the full text. It will be technical. It's free.

For some videos, try . . . includes white spots etc. First entry has a lovely video of a fox (with white markings) playing with a big Rotti. I could easily burn my whole monthly download quota looking at these . . . loads of stuff. http://blog.videosift.com/lucky760/Turning...Into-House-Pets

For some videos, try . . . includes white spots etc. First entry has a lovely video of a fox (with white markings) playing with a big Rotti. http://blog.videosift.com/lucky760/Turning...Into-House-Pets

The NSW Act looks good, but it does seem, in Section 55 (Restricted Dogs), to be quite breed specific.

Please expand, eg with a link to NSW companion animal laws and a brief on how they deal well with dangerous dogs and other problems.

Try Jonica Newby's Animal Attraction, eg. http://www.abc.net.au/animals/ The link includes lots of serious references, including the Russian fox domestication work, and anthropological and DNA work relating to the domestication of dogs. there's a book by the same name that come out in 1997 & 1999.

Ok . . . say all dog owners need licenses. This also applies to a 75 yr old with a 4 kg lapdog who would have trouble taking on a mouse? Would all family members need to be licensed? If not, could a 7 yr old kid, with no license, walk a 65 kg entire dog, who behaved well enough when the adult owner took it through training, but who was more than the kid can handle? What about the mean ACD, worth his weight in gold for stock management, but ready to put other dogs and strangers in their place with a bite or two? Farm exemptions? Would the dog fighting crew just nick out of the system and hide their dogs? Messy. It's hard to write good dog legislation. Can anyone suggest a place (including urban/suburban neighborhoods) that has really good dog laws?

Agreed. What I said is: "There is a consensus that vets shouldn't be given the job [of deciding which dogs are dangerous]." But who should? Should the authorities wait until the dog attacks a person or another dog? That worries me, cause first "mild" attacks tend to get swept under the rug (they have been by our Rangers, anyway), and action is only taken when someone ends up in hospital or a dog killed. Edited to complete thought

What would be a better approach to BSL? (Assuming that there are some dogs that are not safe in public, or even next door if the fences aren't so great). Most participants in this forum seem to agree that the core problem is THEM, the breeders who breed for fighting or in ways that make the breed or cross breed, or whatever, more dangerous, and the dog owners who don't train properly and have dogs as statements of macho nonsense or as weapons. I would imagine that some people who participate on this forum know some of these people well. I don't. I've met a few of them on the street with a snarling dog or two straining on a line (often with a heavily spiked collar or nasty looking chain), and I give them wide berth. If anybody knows such people . . . would they have any suggestions about how to get through to them? I know of places that require ANYONE with an entire dog or bitch to hold a license, and they take away licenses and desex the animals of offenders. Is that a (partial) solution? How do you identify violators? There seems to be a consensus that vets shouldn't be given the job. Ozzie tradition hates dobbing people in . . . would people make an exception in such cases? Is peer/neighbour/postman reporting likely to work? If you identify an offender, what do you do? Remove dogs? Mandate training? Given the scarcity of suitable trainers in some places (eg, WA, which I'm told is dominated by Delta trained trainers, and very short on Cesar Milans), how can 'training' solutions work?

I've been watching Dog Whisperer DVDs (can't afford foxtel). Cesar Milan has a few APBTs in his pack and claims fondness for the breed. But, in various cases, he comes out and says that the breed is exceptionally strong and has tendencies that need to be managed correctly, lest individual dogs become a danger. I'm curious to know how Pitti-lovers feel about this? Is he pandering to the press? Or is his assessment, and management, at least partly on the mark?

The kids may be part of the problem too. You're better off not allowing young children to play in an excited manner with a young pup. Labs, and many other gun dogs, are bred to be mouthy. That mouthyness can easily turn into biting behaviours if not handled consistently. Young children aren't great at consistent discipline. You might want to look at the advice I got in the "training" forum when I asked how to advice a puppy buyer whose pup was getting too wild with the kids. URL http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=161642

If you want to get to the bottom of it, you might want to speak to the breeder. My guess is that the pups were on concrete most, if not all, of the time from five to eight weeks, and learned that concrete is where you do your business. Keeping the pup on the surface you intend as a toiled when the pup is ready to do its business -- and lots of praise when it pees on target -- should work, but may take some time. I have an older girl who insists on doing poohs in the road and in the middle of whatever path we walk on. It never bothered me, cause it's easy to pick up, but is a reminder that they can fixate on a toilet target when they are pups. If you don't like that target, you'll have to train on something else. Positive training is much preferred with the young 'uns.

OF COURSE IT DOES ! The genetics puzzle gets more complicated when you cross breeds. But heredity doesn't disappear!!!!! One reason I caution people against cross breeds is that they may come from dogs/bitches that would not have passed health criteria within their breed standards. Find out what you can about sire and dam . . . it never hurts.

What to feed and how much is endlessly debatable. Whatever you do, remember that most labs are gutsers and skilled at begging, and feeding too much is a more common problem than feeding too little. Also learn to LOOK AT YOUR DOG. You want to be aware of a rib cage, but you don't want a dog that permanently shows a concave belly and ribs sticking out -- the concentration camp image. I like to see pups looking a bit round (gourdo) after they've eaten, and a bit concave when it's feeding time. As they get older, I try to get them a bit less round. The amount they need is dynamic. In growth spurts they may need more food. But if you concentrate on what the dog looks like, on a week to week basis, you should get the balance right. If it's not extreme and doesn't last for weeks, runny poohs can be ignored.

As a trained academic in the sciences (who has already donned her flame retardant suit): - I would agree to the first three points, as they can be verified by statistics and abundant descriptive evidence. It is hard to dismiss the idea that a breed that is bred to fight has some fighting characteristics or a dog that is bred to protect under extreme conditions will tend toward fiercely protective animals . . .or the data on APBTs in attacks, or the breed description of the Dogo Argentino (or whatever the breed name is . . . I've never seen one, but would not like to meet a mastif-sized dog who is, by breed standard, supposed to display hostility to strangers). - I would dispute the last two points, as they are subjective statements of values that cannot be backed by evidence. Breeds have been adapted to new uses. Labradors, now the most popular breed in English-speaking countries and perhaps elsewhere, are rarely used as gun dogs anymore. Many of them are now sh*t retrievers, some are afraid of water. Lagottos, bred for hunting in Italian swamps, were converted to truffle hunting after the swamps were drained, and they're now being marketed as a non-alergenic house dog. There is no inherent reason why APBTs can't be bred into consistently good pets for an urban/suburban environment. - I would work to show that some breeders are actively breeding to eliminate the heritage of breeding dogs for the fighting ring . . . ie, eliminating the that attributes that make some dogs "dangerous", - I would work to show that breeds classed as dangerous have some wonderful, lovable attributes. AND I would loudly and publicly denounce people who breed dogs for fighting. Regardless of breed. I find it difficult to dismiss the evidence that breeding emphasises some behavioural traits. Aggressive tendencies can be bred up or bred down. So long as there are breeders breeding up the fighting traits, and people buying pups in order to end up with powerful, strong-jawed monsters to promote a macho image there will be support for BSL.

Aren't antibiotics for bacterial infections? Yeast is a fungus AFAIK. AFAIK? meaning? Surolan and Dermotic are the two "antibiotic" drop thingys that I've been given to use on dogs with ear infections. These are a coctail of antibiotics, micocide/fungicide, and steroid drugs if I'm reading the labels right. I think "antibiotics" generally refers to a class of drugs produced by fungi and bacteria and used to fight infections. Mostly bacterial infections. But fungi produce some quite potent fungicides as well, and I think it would be correct to call these antibiotics. The fifth kingdom (fungi) is, after all, biotic. I've often been told that antibiotics don't work on viral infections.